Patna HC Upholds Appellate Reversal in Land Title Suit, Cites Conclusive Evidence of Document Interpolation by Plaintiffs (Second Appeal No. 39 of 1991) - 2025-05-09

Patna High Court Dismisses Decades-Old Land Appeal, Cites Plaintiffs' Document Tampering

Patna, Bihar - The Patna High Court, in a judgment delivered on April 30, 2025, by Hon'ble Mr. Justice Arun KumarJha , dismissed Second Appeal No. 39 of 1991, a land dispute case pending since 1991. The Court upheld the First Appellate Court's decision, which had reversed the trial court's decree favouring the plaintiffs, primarily due to compelling evidence of interpolation in crucial documents submitted by the plaintiffs.

The appellants, Sita Ram Mahto and Munshi Mahto (original plaintiffs), were pitted against Jamuna Mishra (original defendant) in a battle for title and possession of 52 decimals of land in Aurangabad district.

Background of the Protracted Dispute

The case revolved around Plot No. 395, appertaining to Khata No. 113 in Village Beri. The plaintiffs claimed title based on an oral settlement from the ex-landlord, subsequent rent payments, and an entry in the zamindari return. They alleged the defendant, Jamuna Mishra , colluded with the ex-landlord's son and relied on forged documents.

Conversely, the defendant asserted that his father, Kauleshwar Misher , had legitimately acquired the land through a 'Parwana' (deed of settlement) from the ex-landlord. He contended that the plaintiffs had interpolated revenue records to create a false claim and that his family had been in continuous possession.

The trial court initially ruled in favour of the plaintiffs. However, the First Appellate Court, upon re-examining the evidence, overturned this decision, finding significant discrepancies and interpolations in the plaintiffs' documentary evidence. This led the plaintiffs to file the present second appeal before the High Court.

Key Arguments in the High Court

The appellants' counsel argued that the First Appellate Court erred by: * Incorrectly concluding that their documents were interpolated and fabricated. * Giving undue weight to a duplicate 'Laggit' (rent roll) over a certified copy of the return. * Disregarding the significance of Exhibit 4/A, an order under Section 103B of the Bihar Tenancy (B.T.) Act. * Wrongly accepting the Circle Officer's jurisdiction to correct returns. * Relying on findings from prior criminal proceedings (under Sections 144/145 Cr.P.C.). Counsel cited judgments including Neeraj Dutta Vs. State on proof of documents, Rajesh Jain Vs. Ajay Singh on burden of proof, and Bhaddo Uraon & Ors. Vs. The State of Bihar & Ors. on the presumption of correctness of Record of Rights.

The respondent's counsel vehemently defended the First Appellate Court's judgment, emphasizing that the plaintiffs had resorted to interpolating documents to stake their claim. This tampering, he argued, was noted in earlier criminal proceedings related to the same land and subsequently confirmed by a Munsif on reference. A crucial point raised was the plaintiffs' failure to file the certified copy of the zamindari return in the trial court, allegedly fearing exposure of the forgery.

High Court's Scrutiny and Decision

Justice Arun KumarJha addressed the substantial question of law: "Whether, in the peculiar facts and circumstances, the finding recorded by the court of appeal are binding on this Court in the Second Appeal".

The High Court meticulously reviewed the findings of both lower courts and the evidence on record. It concurred with the First Appellate Court's detailed analysis, which pointed to several instances of interpolation in documents relied upon by the plaintiffs.

Key observations from the judgment include:

* Corroboration of Interpolation: The Court noted that a Single Judge in a previous criminal revision related to the land had observed that the certified copy of the return filed by the plaintiffs showed entries (Plot No. 395, Khata No. 113) in different ink and pen. A Munsif, on reference, also confirmed these interpolations. The judgment highlighted, "the learned Munsif held that Khata No. 113, Plot No. 395, area 52 decimal has been entered in the certified copy filed by the plaintiffs in different ink."

* Plaintiffs' Conduct: The Court found it significant "that the plaintiff did not file the certified copy of the return before the court of learned Munsif during the pendency of title suit," despite it being a cornerstone of their claim.

* Evidence Discrediting Plaintiffs' Claim: The First Appellate Court had disbelieved the plaintiffs' story of amalgamating the disputed plot with Plot No. 394, as their claim over Plot No. 394 itself was found unsustainable. Moreover, Plot No. 394 was settled by the ex-landlord in favour of one Padmavati Devi.

* Defendant's Evidence: The defendant's claim was supported by documents like Exhibit A (original mortgage deed executed by his father for the suit land) and Exhibit L (Khatian entry).

* Reliability of 'Laggit': The 'Laggit' (rent roll), which showed interpolations by the plaintiffs, was a document called for by the Court from the Collector's office and had been examined in previous proceedings without challenge to its authenticity. The High Court stated, "There has been findings recorded that at Sl. No. 181, the plaintiffs have made interpolation by introducing Plot No. 398 and 395 under Khata No. 113 by different ink and pen."

Regarding the appellants' arguments on legal precedents, the High Court found that the First Appellate Court’s appreciation of evidence, including the handling of primary/secondary evidence and burden of proof, was sound, especially given the strong evidence of document tampering. The Court also deemed the argument about the Circle Officer's power to correct returns "not of much consequence in the light of the other facts and circumstances."

Concluding the matter, Justice Jha stated: > "In the light of the discussion, I do not find any error in the findings recorded by the learned 1st Appellate Court and therefore, the substantial question of law framed, the present matter is decided against the appellants."

Final Verdict

The Patna High Court dismissed the second appeal, affirming the judgment and decree of the First Appellate Court. This decision underscores the critical importance of authentic and untampered documentary evidence in title suits, and how findings of forgery can be fatal to a litigant's claim, even in long-pending disputes.